6.  The first applicant was the mother of the second and third applicants. The fourth applicant is the second applicant’s daughter.
7.  In 1968 the first applicant and her husband purchased from the State a three-room apartment which occupied the first floor of a two-storey building in Plovdiv. Its area was approximately 95 square metres. They also acquired a share in the plot on which the building was constructed and a share in the yard.
8.  The whole property had become State owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and for several years afterwards.
9.  In the years after 1968 the first applicant and her husband made improvements to the property and constructed an annex of 34 square metres and a garage in the yard.
10.  On 29 September 1992, shortly after the adoption of the Restitution Law, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the first applicant and her husband.
11.  Following the death of the first applicant’s husband, on an unspecified date the second and third applicants became co-owners of the property. The proceedings continued against the first, second and third applicants.
12.  The District Court held nine hearings and examined witnesses and documentary evidence. Two adjournments, which caused a delay of approximately five months, were requested by the plaintiffs, the pre-nationalisation owners.
13.  On 30 January 1995 the Plovdiv District Court found that the 1968 transaction was valid and rejected the claim.
14.  On appeal, on 14 July 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The courts examined and rejected the plaintiff’s allegation that the apartment had been acquired through abuse of official position.
15.  On 20 May 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor submitted to the Supreme Court a request for review.
16.  On 22 July 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation, to which the case was transferred following a reform in the judicial system, accepted the request and, considering that the lower courts had not examined all arguments of the plaintiffs, quashed their judgments and referred the case for a fresh examination.
17.  In the renewed proceedings, on 21 July 1998 the Plovdiv District Court again rejected the plaintiffs’ claim against the first, second and third applicants. The plaintiffs appealed.
18.  On 12 July 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment, declared the 1968 contract null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ ownership of the first floor and the share in the plot and the yard. By final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 21 June 2000 that decision was upheld. The courts found that a relevant document had been signed by the Deputy Minister of Architecture and Building Planning instead of by the Minister personally and concluded that as a result the first applicant and her husband had not validly acquired the property in 1968.
19.  The applicants, including the fourth applicant who apparently lived in the apartment at issue for an unspecified period, refused to leave the property.
20.  In 2002 Mr and Mrs P., the persons to whom the restored owners had sold the property in February 2002, brought a rei vindicatio action against the four applicants. The statement of claim did not mention the garage.
21.  In May 2002 Mr and Ms P. demolished the garage and built a new one. The applicants complained to the prosecuting authorities, who considered that the dispute was of a civil nature and had to be decided in court.
22.  On 24 October 2002 the Plovdiv District Court delivered its judgment. It ordered the applicants to vacate the property.
23.  As regards the annex, the court noted the absence of authorisation for its construction but decided that the rei vindicatio claim was futile as the applicants no longer possessed the annex, Mr and Mrs P having occupied it. The court rejected the claim on that ground.
24.  As regards the garage, the court made remarks to the effect that it must be considered State owned, but did not rule on the issue, as Mr and Mrs P. had not claimed the garage.
25.  Ensuing appeals by the applicants were unsuccessful. It appears that they vacated the first-floor apartment in January 2003. The proceedings ended with a final decision on 9 February 2004.
26.  In 2000 it became possible for the first, second and third applicants to obtain partial compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not make use of this opportunity within the relevant two-month time-limit, which expired in August 2000. In August 2006 they requested compensation bonds, arguing that a legislative amendment adopted in 2006 should be interpreted as renewing the time-limit. The regional governor refused. Ensuing appeals submitted by the first, second and third applicants were rejected by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 23 October 2008. The courts considered that the legislative amendment at issue did not give rise to a new entitlement to compensation bonds and therefore did not affect the relevant time-limit.
27.  In 2005 Mr and Mrs P. brought an action against the second applicant, seeking compensation for the fact that she had failed to vacate the property in 2002. These proceedings ended on 10 July 2006. The second applicant was ordered to pay approximately 4,600 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in compensation (the equivalent of approximately 2,350 euros (EUR)).